Although some are claiming her stance on immigration is preceded by years of anti-immigrant policy in the previous Clinton White House, I’m still totally flabbergasted by Hillary Clinton’s recent spate of comments calling for swift deportation of immigrants, with no due process. Until today, I was still not completely decided on who I wanted to vote for in the primary next Tuesday. There are a lot of things I actually like about Clinton: I’m more impressed with her take on universal health care, and I strongly believe in the need for a woman in the White House someday soon. But unless this is a hoax, or there’s some explanation that convinces me it’s all wildly misconstrued, there is now a 0% chance I will vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The New York Sun is known for having a somewhat neocon bent, but they’re far from being Fox News or the Post. Unless they’re flat-out lying, this is not a single slip of the tongue or ill-considered comment we’re talking about here. Keep in mind this is Hillary Clinton we’re talking about here. She’s not only a very savvy political operative who’s not known for making absurd slip-ups, she’s also been a lawyer for the last 35 years, and started her law career interning at a civil rights firm. But nevertheless, she said these things on three different occasions to three different audiences:
“Anybody who committed a crime in this country or in the country they came from has to be deported immediately, with no legal process. They are immediately gone…”
“[Aliens with criminal records] should be deported, no questions asked.”
[About illegal aliens who have committed crimes] “No legal process. You put them on a plane to wherever they came from.”
She apparently wants to put immigration lawyers out of business, not to mention public defenders who represent non-citizens. I can’t believe she’d toss due process out the window, even to earn points with certain audiences for being “tough on immigration.” Pandering is no excuse for taking a torch to the Fifth Amendment! Isn’t due process part of what’s supposed to set Democrats apart from the Constitution-burning Bush administration? Aren’t liberals supposed to be concerned about the abuses at Guantanamo, about prisoners being locked up or tortured with no fair trial, just because they’re not citizens or suspected of a crime? This is serious facepalm territory we’re in at this point.
Even if we agree for a second that yes, we want to deport “bad criminals” and not let them live here like the “good immigrants,” how can anyone possibly think you can figure that out “immediately” with “no questions asked?” The whole point of due process is that you determine who’s actually a criminal and who’s not, right? Who deserves a chance at living here and who doesn’t? The point is that everyone, citizen or no, is equal before the law, and that since not all crimes are committed equally, we have a process. And of course, even the process does not work perfectly, so there are appeals; we don’t just throw people away. Well actually, we do under the current administartion — but you’d think a candidate who trumpets about change would not be encouraging the current state of affairs:
To say boldly “We don’t need no process, just send the criminals home!” belies your complete lack of basic competence on immigration. How do you imagine this working? Arrest the guy, see if he has an accent, and drive him over a random border?
This is probably a good working description of the system we have now. ICE (immigration) has trained local jail staff to go through and put holds on guys with spanish names and transport them to a federal detention nearby to be deported with almost no checks. I really don’t know what the best solution here is, but less process is certainly not the answer.
(Fledermaus commenting at Obsidian Wings, where there are lots of good comments on this story, including background on how immigration controls became harsher during the last Clinton’s heyday.)
It’s not as if we’re currently operating on some incredibly lax system that’s letting all sorts of people in. Quite the contrary: I hear more and more stories all the time about families who slip through the cracks, deportations of kids who have never lived anywhere else, countless abuses by the Homeland Security, even of tourists who slightly overstayed their visa ten years earlier. And Clinton apparently wants to make this harsher and faster. There are far too many stories like this one, described by crankyliberal, an immigration attorney:
Really, Hillary? Do you want to know how many Lawful Permanent Residents I’ve helped lately who were in proceedings for a single drug possession conviction? These people have been here for over 20 years in most cases, have families and jobs, and screwed up. One of them was a bit stressed out after surviving cancer and also having to take care of her mother who is suffering from cancer. So she did some drugs. Right now, they have a chance to prove that they deserve to stay because the positive equities outweigh the negative. Now, that’s their only chance- if they ever screw up again, they’re removed, no questions asked.
But you want to take that away? Take away their chance to prove their worth? A chance that people value so much they’ll sit in detention for six months (not to mention the extra time if there is an appeal lodged- that means a year or more easily)even though many of them have never been in jail once?
My mother is an immigrant, a resident alien who’s lived here for over 40 years. I guess I ought to warn her not to drive recklessly and be more careful with how she fills out her taxes, since if she slips up even the Democrats will be gunning for her now.
crankyliberal goes on to talk about how absurd it is that Clinton implies that we ought to condemn and deport criminals who have a criminal record in their country of origin. I guess we don’t need due process if we just trust every other legal system in the world, huh? How can you even make a statement like that without thinking about all the corrupt, despotic laws and criminal justice systems in the world? Without thinking of people who apply for asylum after having been persecuted in their own countries? And that’s to say nothing of the idea that someone who commits a crime here should just be shipped off; at the moment, I thought, people who commit crimes in the US are given a fair trial and then, if found guilty, serve their sentences here. But I guess that’s not what Clinton wants; she’d be fine with shipping some criminals back to countries where they won’t be prosecuted?
The most deeply disturbing thing here is that Clinton’s rhetoric, whether she believes it or not, is supporting a medieval, unconstitutional worldview where there are “bad people” out there who don’t deserve rights, who don’t deserve due process. We can just recognize them — through some sort of “faster” un-process, whether that means profiling, arrest, or glancing at their record — and then boot them. I really hope someone can explain to me how this is all a mistake or a misunderstanding. Otherwise, the only explanation I can come up with will be that the last eight years of constant abuse of our laws and principles have shifted discourse a grotesque degree towards a paranoid police-state. So far that even centrist liberals like Clinton are now willing to crap all over the Constitution to score some points with Democratic primary voters who <b>actually like</b> hearing that rights to legal process are being torched. It’s a very depressing thought.
(via Ampersand)
Honestly, I can’t see why this would be a surprise. Her willingness to pander to right wing positions in order to “preserve her electability” (which I put in quotes because I think this pandering is actually what’s killing the democrats) is very consistent. Everyone remembers her pander voting for the war, but how sponsoring (not just voting for but SPONSORING) a ban on flag burning or defending DOMA?
I have to echo Kathygnome here. It’s been clear for a long time that Senator Clinton has primarily been concerned with one thing: getting Senator Clinton elected president. Pandering and centrism-for-the-sake-of-votes (if they’re not synonymous) are capital crimes in politicians as far as I’m concerned. If your primary goal is merely grabbing power, not improving the country or working for social justice or a thousand other worthy goals, grabbing power is all you’ll ever use your position to do. You can tell yourself that once you get the position you seek, you’ll use it to do great things, but the fact is that there is always more power to gain, and then there’s the maintenance…you soon find the need to remain as vague and pandering as possible never ceases to exist.
The cult of power for the sake of power is at the root of every evil in the Bush administration- greed for power has driven every terrible policy and event over the past 8 years. I’m not saying attaining the presidency will turn Clinton into Bush- I believe a Clinton presidency would still be worlds better than any of the Republican contenders- but I see no reason to throw my support behind someone whose greed for power outweighs the sense of moral decency that would prevent any rational person from saying things like “illegal immigrants should be deported with no legal process.”
Simply put, the ends do not justify the means.
I assumed immediately that this was some sort of pandering — and I’m definitely not so naive as to expect pro-immigration statements from Clinton. I expect something like this, her official position on immigration. It’s carefully hair-splitting in a time-honored political way, offering a path to citizenship but still sounding “tough on illegal immigration.” It does not contain any suggestion that we should actually eliminate due process and somehow “toss out all the bad guys” based on something non-process like, I don’t know, the discerning gaze of a law enforcement officer? That’s not even centrist pandering to me — it’s right-wing wingnut pandering.
It’s clear that “immigrants who committed a crime” are really easy targets if a candidate wants to sound tough on immigration. But I still don’t expect attacks on due process. I’m not sure what’s more shocking:
a) that Clinton thinks she can garner more support by attacking due process;
b) that she ACTUALLY CAN garner more support from Democratic voters by attacking due process.
Either choice, as I note at the end, is a depressing sign of how low we’ve sunk as a result of the last eight-years of rampant, power-mad law-flouting. Shouldn’t we be expecting MORE than that from the Democratic candidate?
I don’t have the time right now to click through all the links, though I’d like to come back to this. Is this information found anywhere besides the NY Sun? As you point out, it’s not exactly “fair and balanced.”
At the moment, I’m going to go with “misconstrued,” although “completely made up” is also a possibility. Wouldn’t be the first time. I’ve been following the campaign for almost a year and haven’t heard this policy. It’s not Clinton’s stated policy. Will look around and come back, though.
Remember the Cuban Marellitos(sic)? They were dumped on Arkansas. Actually not to far from Little Rock. She has some knowledge of illegals being less than nice.
When she moved to New York, she didn’t move to the areas known for illegals. She went for the comfort and status of the upper middle class. Why do you expect her to have warm fuzzies when the illegals of her experience are invisible or violent thugs?
Glad to see folks are getting over momentary blindness from the glorious vision of a vagina in the white house…clinton is way too conservative, especially on issues of foreign policy, immigration policy, and corporate welfare.
No now we have folks so desparate to prove their above said vision is over that they are willing to just make up shit not to mention throw out every feminine stereotype about her known to man to fulfill that goal. Let see what I’ve seen in the blogs lately…Hawkish, refuses to apologize, a doormat, let’s not forget promise breaker, ruthless, too ambitious, too agressive and also not agressive enough and her life long work for women and children is moot because she voted for that war, which is now the most important issue for those who said when supporting another candidate the most important issue was fighting poverty. But there’s another reason the war is the perfect issue all of the sudden because even though she has an exit plan who can really believe she’ll use it, being as ruthless and hawkish as she is and she won’t dare apologize. My new favorite is hey she could do tons of good work going back in the senate where Obama will sign any legislation she writes and give her a pat on the head. The overwhelming theme here is that Hillary Clinton is an accomplished woman but one who is so power hungry and deceitful that we have to check that power. Two problems, that is the quintessential stereotype of every woman from Eve to Hillary, and it’s very heavy on rhetoric and light on facts. As someone who is undecided it is disturbing to see this trend, but more disturbing when the sources are people I once admired. Being a feminist does not mean you should vote for the woman in the race, but I think it should help you refrain from using every tired sexist stereotype to defend your choice.
This post isn’t about Clinton’s support for the war, although I have to say her comments on that have not earned her any points in my book. And I don’t think I posted (or ever posted) any of the following about Clinton: “promise breaker, ruthless, too ambitious, too agressive and also not agressive enough and her life long work for women and children is moot because she voted for that war.” Are you seeing any feminine stereotypes in the accusation that if these quotes are real, she’s engaging in what amounts to extreme right-wing pandering and suggesting that we throw due process away? I could definitely see that as her living up to a stereotype of being a politician and a centrist, but I’m missing the gender angle.
The thing is, if you look at her record, and also the record of her husband (whose policies are relevant even if he’s not the candidate this time around) it’s all to easy to believe that they’d be willing to sacrifice some liberties in order to appear “tough on immigration.” I have no idea exactly what the context of the quotes were, and unless someone who was at those appearances shows up, it’s going to be hard to know for sure. The Clinton campaign already commented that those quotes were meant “only for illegal immigrants” which sadly, doesn’t make that stance any less unconstitutional or flagrantly against the just process of law. If they were pressed on the issue, I’m sure they’d backpedal somehow, because I just can’t see “no due process, immediately, no questions asked” being defensible in any kind of sustained discussion where people aren’t just applauding your “tough on the bad guys” bravado.
Well, that’s … disgusting, frankly.
wow. That is unacceptable.
Nothing profound to add, just disgust.
i have to agree that the problem with Hillary Clinton is that there is not a single progressive principle that she won’t turn her back on for political expediency. (unfortunately, this even includes feminist principles, as she showed in the past with her unfair, sexist stereotyping of the women who accused Bill of sexual harassment.)
i think feminist/womanist values are needed in the White House, at all times, not just when it’s palatable to the general public.
Hillary Clinton strikes me as the Mitt Romney of the Democratic side. The thing is, whereas Romney will say whatever the fuck he can to appease the right wing base, Clinton will say whatever the fuck she can to appease . . . the right wing base. The right wing base is sacrosanct and the left wing base is a bunch of loonies, after all. Even when those fringe leftists happen to be the majority of the country, like on the Iraq war, they’re a bunch of loons and Clinton won’t be caught dead with them.
Don’t you love the state of our political discourse? Good times.
Any politician that says they will let illegal immigrants stay who have committed crimes would have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the general election. Sen. Clinton has to be the president of the WHOLE United States, not just illegal immigrant advocates and attorneys. To the vast majority of the country illegal immigration is a huge problem…at least she’s not saying she’ll throw them all out like Romney. Due process is a right guaranteed to legal citizens, not to anyone who “jumps” the border. If a resident of another country would like to apply for access to the US they are still welcome, but they are not allowed to break our laws and get a free pass.
No, due process is absolutely NOT a right for citizens only. It’s a right guaranteed to any human being that’s tried by a legal system. It’s an inalienable and fundamental right that’s enshrined by any legal system that’s hopes to be taken seriously as a form of justice. It exists in international law as well — for visitors to another country who are not citizens, for war crimes, etc. The constitution doesn’t say anything about “only citizens.” Do you need a quote?
Fifth Amendment:
Fourteenth Amendment:
In fact, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment (notably Howard and Bingham) included that redundant language specifically so that individual states would have to ensure the same right for all people — not just citizens — just as the federal government has to under the Fifth Amendment.
Due process is necessary to even determine who is an “illegal immigrant.” It is necessary to determine who “has committed a crime.” You cannot do any of these things fully without due process.
Saying you think undocumented immigrants who are found guilty of crimes should be deported as part of their punishment is entirely different from saying “let’s do away with due process,” which is what Clinton is doing.
The opposition to the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo — bipartisan opposition, I might add — is also based on the fact that even non-citizens who are suspected of terrorism should have a right to due process. Without due process, all you have in a legal system is despotism, where the state can do whatever they want to anyone, arbitrarily and most likely corruptly.
There is no way that Hillary Clinton actually believes that we can eliminate due process, either in determining if a foreign national is actually guilty of a crime, or in determining whether someone is in the country illegally. It’s not only impractical, it’s tantamount to saying “round up everyone that we arrested who looks Mexican and ship ‘em out.” It’s absurd and only far-right wingnuts would even suggest such a thing seriously. The appalling thing is that apparently, she did actually suggest it, probably to earn points with an audience who has no idea how galling the idea really is, and just thinks “guh… gotta get rid of all those criminals from south of the border.”
So I’m assuming that you’re ever arrested for a crime in, say, Australia, you expect to be thrown in jail and summarily deported without even a hearing, correct? After all, you’re not an Australian citizen, so there’s no need to find out if you’re actually guilty or not.
Australia? Deported? There are a lot less pleasant examples than that, if you think due process is such a restricted right that shouldn’t be guaranteed to everyone by international law. Probably best to never leave the country.
Well, yeah, but saying that the US is marginally better than Myanmar doesn’t say much, unless your point is that we’re Not As Bad (which is a pretty low bar to jump).
Pointing out that the US wouldn’t be living up to the standards of other Western countries if we eliminate due process for non-citizens is still worthwhile. Otherwise the Not As Bas As game drags us down to the point where Republicans say, “See, we don’t execute people at Guantanamo, so that means we’re Not As Bad as Saddam and therefore, we’re good!” and the American public says, “Well, I guess so” and goes back to watching “American Idol,” because there’s someone that we’re Not As Bad as.
If I illegally entered Australia, I would expect to be deported. I never suggested that we should throw them in prisons and throw away the key without a trial. But, if an illegal immigrant is also convicted of committing another crime, then they should be deported. I believe this is what Sen. Clinton is alluding to, not just round up all the Mexicans and deport them. In fact, she cautioned against doing that very thing. I live in Virginia where we had a case of an illegal with other arrests who went out and killed others while drunk driving. (http://hamptonroads.com/node/245581) This has been very hard on the parents of those two girls, because had he been deported on his first arrest, their daughters would be alive. This is what Sen. Clinton is talking about, and you do her a grave disservice by suggesting that she wants to throw away the constitution and due process.
Can I please just remind everyone who doesn’t know that people are not “illegal.” The crime is illegal, not the person, and many take grave offense in the word being used that way. The preferred term to distinguish an immigrant as one who has not entered the country through legal processes is “undocumented.” I say this giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, as I was ignorant and had to have the same explained to me within the last year. Not attacking anyone . . . unless you do know better and continue to use the term anyway. Which I certainly hope is not the case with anyone here.
I don’t see any other way of interpreting those comments she’s quoted as saying. Because one drunk driver with a prior record could have been deported… this means we should remove the entire fair process that is our only means to sort out the guilty from the innocent? The only way to distinguish people who ought to have a chance in this country from those who don’t deserve one? The method to sort those with extenuating circumstances from those without, people with serious criminal careers from those who made one mistake or were arrested in another country by a corrupt regime or for unjust laws? There are hundreds of stories out there about how the harsh, “ship ‘em away and let someone else sort them out” procedures instituted during the Clinton administration in 1996 have torn families apart, destroyed people’s lives, sent people to countries where they’ve never lived and don’t speak the language, sent people back into the hands of oppressive states, homophobic violence — the list goes on. Just follow the links above to read more — any immigration lawyer or public defender has a score of stories like this, about people squeezed at the margins. And all of this is so the Clintons can be perceived as “tough on immigration?” The current atmosphere, especially for the last eight years, is not one where we need to get even MORE callous and hasty about destroying the lives of the disenfranchised to earn some popularity points.
If you illegally entered a country or were arrested — even if you knew you were innocent — in another country without receiving the right of due process, anything could happen to you. Anything the people in power wanted. Unfortunately, we can no longer trust that “we’re not a country like that” — not after Guantanamo.
There are some really simple questions that can be aimed at Clinton’s quotes, which I still hope are fabricated:
Deported immediately when you “commit a crime?” With no legal process? Not when you’re found guilty after a legal process? That clearly implies that no legal system has even proven your guilt. Does that sound like a just deal to you, if you were visiting some other nation? If you lived there, were studying abroad, etc? (And remember you live in the cushy United States, as opposed to a country where you might be in danger, lose your freedom, have no means to live.)
But wait, that’s not all. “Or in the country you came from.” How can you even utter a sentence like that — especially if you are as intelligent and well-versed in international politics and law as Clinton is — without being aware that not all countries are equal when it comes to how people are arrested or what you’re arrested for? How about “you were arrested for a crime because you live in a corrupt state and someone in power, even a local police chief, didn’t like you?” How about “you were arrested for being in the same room with a man who is not your relative” or “you were arrested for being gay?” I’m sure if the Clinton campaign were pressed on this, they’d make a lot of concerned hand-waving about of course people can apply for asylum. This ignores the fact that asylum-seekers are turned away all the time because they have “criminal records”… that RELATE to the reasons they’re seeking asylum. Again, we got “harsh on immigration” in the 1990s when most organizations seeking to help immigrants were federally defunded, among other things. It also ignores the fact that, without a due process, if you replace it with “immediate action” — how can you ever distinguish someone with a real criminal record from someone who has been persecuted unfairly in another nation whose legal system we may strongly disagree with?
Again — any criminal record? A criminal record in their own country? A juvenile criminal record? What kind of crime — oh wait, this is NO QUESTIONS ASKED. No questions asked means a blanket sweep of everyone, regardless of circumstances or individual cases or anything. It means getting rid of all the people who actually try to do this work right now — immigration lawyers, people in the government — to try and sort out whose case has merit and whose doesn’t. And supposedly that’s a good thing.
Same as the first, again, on a different occasion. Plus, actual criminals? I guess we should stop having them serve a sentence here, as we currently do, right? If you kill someone in the United States, right now you serve a sentence here. If Clinton seriously went through with this, what’s her proposal? Commit a crime here, and we send you to another country. Where you may or may not be punished for a crime committed in a totally different jurisdiction, nation, government, etc. That’s a pretty good deal, especially for nations who could care less about their citizens committing crimes in the US. It just makes no sense as a principle. It only makes sense as some kind of feel-good “round up the bad guys” talking point, with nothing behind it but cynical manipulation.
Look, I really hope Clinton did not say these things, because it’s appalling for any politician or lawyer to go to this place, even in an election year. Even if “she doesn’t really mean it” it’s appalling to pander and play to people’s emotions with a tactic that fundamentally, in the very language she uses, involves grinding up the principles of justice.
Would you expect to be arrested at the airport, sent to jail overnight, not allowed to call friends or family, and sent back to your home country because you overstayed your visa 10 years before? After all, she was perfectly fair game since she was once here illegally, right?
Y’know, when this subject comes up, with all the attendant sob stories, I feel a certain amount of sympathy, I really do. I feel for the people fleeing oppresive regimes and hate crimes in their home countries. I feel for the children of illegal immigrants – excuse me, undocumented, is that supposed to make it sound better? – who are deported to their parent’s country, though they were born here. I honestly feel sorry for the families that are separated and all the rest, and I honestly wish that there was something I could say, some simple solution or a magic wand or something that I could do.
But I can’t. At this moment in time, it’s all I can do to hold my head above the water. Money, health insurance, yadda, y’all know the dance.
Call me selfish, go ahead I don’t care, but at this moment in time, I am mainly concerned with things that directly impact me and unfortunately, illegal immigration impacts me in a negative way, so I have a hard time actually caring that people who come here illegally might get sent back to their countries without a by your leave.
For example, I work in a public school district in a little town that is just over 50% Hispanic and a good third or more are illegal. Might not sound like much, but when the district abruptly goes from roughly 12 students per teacher to nearly 25, it makes a difference. When other programs like music, UIL or GT have to be cut in order to implement ESL classes, it makes an impact. When over half the student body is on free/reduced lunches, it makes an impact. Don’t even mention the damn TAKS (standadized test) and what effect having a student body with limited english proficiency and limited school before coming to this country is having. (Well, to be fair standardized testing sucks on all levels, but in a situation like this, it sucks monster donkey balls.)
Obviously, there are other factors causing all of this, but illegal immigration plays a part in every single one of them, and yes, it’s the easiest, most ‘obvious’ factor to blame, but that doesn’t mean there is no truth in it.
Frankly, in this situation, everyone loses, no matter where they were born or what color their skin is. If the solution means enforcing existing laws about immigration, so be it. If it means cracking down on further illegal immigration, so be it. At this moment, places like the school district where I substitute is stressed to the breaking point and I know we have it fairly easy compared to other places.
Sometimes we really do have to look out for number one and that includes everyone that is already here and trying to makea life for themselves, no matter their language or skin color. One day, the straw really will break the camel’s back and we will be so screwed.
If you believe some kids are more entitled to those things than other kids because they were born here or have parents that manage to secure documents, then we’ll have to disagree — especially since so many undocumented immigrants are paying taxes, paying into social security, and often doing without a lot of other benefits and protections that citizens get because of their undocumented status. And that includes having to take the kind of crap jobs that our society reserves especially for our bottom-tier labor caste, the undocumented immigrant. You absolutely should look out for #1 first — but that doesn’t have to mean saying that privileged kids (citizenship is a privilege, not anything earned — let’s not make that mistake) deserve things that others don’t. “Everyone that is already here” includes an awful lot of undocumented people whose backs the economy is built on.
And yes, school districts are at a breaking point — the only REAL solution is to fund schools better for all kids, and I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you that. Stopgap solutions that involve disenfranchising some people even more? Argue for it as a survival tactic. Don’t promote it as a long-term political strategy.
This isn’t really the point anyway, since Clinton and many other candidates, even some Republicans, believe in “path to citizenship” and all that. The real issue is that a group of people who tend to be even more disenfranchised than most undocumented immigrants — those who are criminalized, for whatever reason, whether they’re really at fault or not — are being used as cannon fodder and having inalienable rights stripped from them, at least in the rhetoric of a Democratic candidate.
If the rest of the world is screwed, we are ultimately screwed too, no matter what we do. There is no avoiding that. No matter who we try to keep out of our borders or out of our schools. They are us, in the long run, and no wall or nation-state is going to protect you. This needs to be the first lesson in international politics, including immigration policy.
Rebecca, what jobs are available in your town that it’s suddenly 50% populated by illegal workers?
Cracking down on illegal workers does about as much good as arresting prostitutes — you have to shut down the demand end in order to dry up the supply. If you deport every illegal worker tomorrow, places like Tyson Foods would just find new coyotes to bring people over the border.
So, no, I don’t blame the people who come here for work. They’re not inventing these jobs out of thin air. American companies are bringing them here, directly or indirectly. Blaming the workers for the actions of the companies that exploit them makes no sense.
Question: without due process, when you’re arrested, declared an illegal immigrant and shipped off to Syria, how exactly do you plan on contesting that?
Looks like the women of my generation have wasted our time working to secure women’s equality. Is this the only thing a “feminist” blog can write about during one of the most historic campaigns ever?
No wonder we have yet to have a woman president, when so many young women have such a shallow understanding of history.
BAC
BAC- what history is there to understand that we should ignore issues and vote for the human with the same genitalia as our own? Are you suggesting that we stop debating the actual issues and vote for a vagina in the white house? Funny, I thought that was what feminists have been against for the last 150 years- favoring/disfavoring someone based on sex. The minute anyone announces they voted for Clinton simply because she is female- her entire presidency will be viewed as female affirmative action and any accomplishments she would achieve will be undermined just as quickly as any mistakes she makes will be held up as “proof” that women can’t lead. (Same for Obama- saying that anyone should vote for him just to have a Black man in the White House will only undermine his future achievements as president.) Not to mention that I think it would be insulting to either candidate to think that their positions on issues didn’t matter as much as their sex/color. Whatever our opinion of their positions, both of them have worked very hard to get to where they are and we cannot and should not trivialize their past acomplishments and current stances by ignoring their statements and voting for their biology. It is imperative that we judge the candidates on the issues alone- not on whether we want someone other than the usual white guy.
So what history did you want to teach me that would counter the above? What part of the women’s movement should teach me to vote for a woman without considering her thoughts and plans? Let me put it a different way- if Ann Coulter was running for president, would we be having this conversation?
I’m a throwback to the 80′s–like to call’em ALIENS.
Picture some dude swimming across the Rio Grande with big blue Star Trek ears and fingertips that light up. Nanoo, Nanoo, amigo!
nazrafel: I must admit that all things being equal, I would vote for or hire a minority man or a woman of any ethnicity over a white man. Not because of “affirmative action” or liberal guilt, but simply because studies have consistently shown that people in our culture underestimate the qualifications of women and minorities. Therefore, if I think that they are equal, the white man is probably actually less qualified.
That having been said, I’m not sure I wouldn’t have voted for Edwards if he had stayed in. Despite his poor handling of the slandering of Amanda Marcotte and obnoxious sexist comment in the “Hillary cries” bruhaha, he is probably the most liberal of the three. As it is, I’m undecided. I know Clinton to be reasonably competent as a senator and have no idea of Obama’s record. Clinton has refused to condemn the Iraq war, but Obama openly stated that he would consider nuking Iran. Clinton’s health care plan is better but Obama hasn’t made any idiotic statements about denying people legal process based on their perceived immigration status. But either way, flaws and all, either is VASTLY preferable to McCain/Romney/Huckabee. Or a continued Bush regime if some “emergency” occurs that gives him an excuse to cancel the election. (Yeah, I’m paranoid. But they really are out to get us.)
Diane, I agree that any of the democratic candidates would be better than anything the Republicans would throw up (hmm, good pun). While I understand the inclination (and kinda feel it myself to be honest) I guess I am hesitant to get my hopes up about a minority candidate’s supposed dedication towards improving the situation for all people in minority positions in the US. (Alan Keyes, Margaret Thatcher and Condolezza Rice are just a few great examples- if they were in the running would any of us think that they would do anything positive for minorities of any type?) I REALLY REALLY REALLY want a female president, or a black president, or ANYONE other than a male WASP at this point but I don’t want to base my decision soley on that.
Yeah, if everyone had the same platform anyhow, I’d vote for the minority candidate too- same difference in policy and finally get someone else upstairs. But this election democrats have to choose between two and it seems like it is playing out like a zero-sum game- if one wins, the other “loses”- it’s being framed as race vs gender and since we can’t have a co-presidency, at best only one of them will make it (I can’t even considering a republican winning, though that is a serious danger).
What I am trying to do through all my blathering is to decide who to vote for I guess- Clinton or Obama?? Both have pros and cons and are generally so similar that, to be perfectly honest, I just can’t decide and I feel (for me personally) it is coming down to who I identify with more, which as a woman would be Clinton. Maybe my original post is more a self-chastisment- I don’t want to feel like I am voting for anyone just because of identity politics (so I get really annoyed when someone suggests that is exactly what we should do). But I can’t seem to find one single thing the puts me solidly in one camp or another.
I have NEVER had an election come down the days before and I still don’t know who to vote for! I watched the myspace “dialogue” this afternoon, spent time surfing the net looking for analysis of the candidates’ policies and the more I read, the more indecisive I become. I’m afraid I am going to walk into the voting both and have “eni meeni miny mo” running through my head.
Sigh. And you’re right. They ARE out to get us.
Consider what Hillary’s stated position would do to immigrant women who are victims of domestic abuse, yeah, but you know what, fuck everyday underpriveleged women. All that matters is that a woman is in the White House, right? Even if she advocated for banning abortion and abolishing women’s suffrage, the feminist thing to do is to blindly vote for a woman, right? Damn straight.
*not saying that Hillary actually advocated those things, but remember, she is a hawk, and that alone should be enough for all decent people to think twice about voting for her. And not just a hawk in that she voted for the Iraq resolution in 2002, but she has since been a vocal supporter of the war, claimed in February, 2005 that the insurgency was all but defeated, and voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment calling the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist organization – i.e. helping along a potential new war in Iran.
And from a feminist point of view, consider how much progress was made in Iraq for women’s rights over the previous 30 years before the war, and how that thanks to the war women in Iraq have to live in Sharia law, if they’re not getting killed and raped thanks to the rampant violence as Iraq continues to devolve into chaos. And let me repeat, that this is a war that Hillary Clinton helped bring into existence.
“But she’s a woman” ain’t gonna cut it.
What would it do? I’m not sure I understand this point.
Yeah, because a candidate’s stance on immigration is such, like, a non-issue. How shallow of us feminists, sorry, “feminists” to ponder the fate of millions of men, children and yes, WOMEN who are undocumented in this country.
How shallow it is to be alarmed at the thought of the elimination of due process! Don’t we have something better to blog about?
Lucky that BAC is here to teach us whippersnappers to be really deep by voting with our vaginas. Or something. I’m sorry, I got distracted by the shiny glossy gleam of the Vogue cover on my desk. Gaaahhhhh.
[...] so quick to throw poor women and immigrant women’s interests away. And Clinton is definitely not ideal on immigrant [...]
It is illegal to cross the border into the U.S. (or any country for that matter) without authorization. Therefore anyone who is here illegally is a criminal and should be deported. DEPORT THEM ALL.
Illegal immigrant is a term for someone who has immigrated by breaking the law.
If you honestly believe that everyone on the whole planet that wants to come here should be able to do so without restriction, then your position as an open borders advocate is defensible, otherwise your logic is flawed.
[...] this is any indication of what Hillary Rodham Clinton would do in office, the Bush-era disregard for the [...]